License Selection for Software and Content

Purpose

Guide users through selecting appropriate licenses for code, documentation, and content. Provide decision trees, use case analysis, and multi-licensing strategies with emphasis on practical outcomes.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when:

User needs to choose a software license
Selecting Creative Commons licenses for documentation/media
Discussing multi-licensing or dual-licensing strategies
Comparing license options (MIT vs Apache, GPL vs permissive)
Understanding license compatibility
Considering FSL-1.1-MIT or time-delayed open source
Setting up license files in repositories

License Hierarchy and Recommendations

For Code Projects

Tier 1: GitHub-Approved Licenses (Recommended First)

Present these licenses first for code projects:

MIT: Maximum adoption, simple, permissive
Apache-2.0: Permissive with patent grant protection
GPL-3.0: Strong copyleft, derivatives must be open source
AGPL-3.0: Network copyleft, closes SaaS loophole
BSD-3-Clause: Permissive with trademark protection

Tier 2: Special Purpose

FSL-1.1-MIT: Commercial now, MIT in 2 years (Sentry model)
MPL-2.0: File-level copyleft, good for libraries
LGPL-2.1: Library-focused copyleft

Tier 3: OSI-Approved (Not on GitHub List)

Recommend only if specific requirements demand them.

For Documentation and Media

Tier 1: Creative Commons (Recommended First)

Present these for non-code content:

CC-BY-4.0: Attribution only, most permissive
CC-BY-SA-4.0: Attribution + ShareAlike (copyleft)
CC0-1.0: Public domain dedication
CC-BY-NC-4.0: Attribution + NonCommercial (limits commercial use)

Tier 2: Code Licenses

Use only if documentation is code-adjacent (API docs in repo).

License Decision Tree

Quick Selection for Code

Question 1: Do you want maximum adoption?

YES → MIT License (recommended for most projects)
NO → Continue

Question 2: Do you need patent protection?

YES → Apache-2.0 (includes explicit patent grant)
NO → Continue

Question 3: Do you want copyleft (derivatives must be open source)?

YES → GPL-3.0 (strong copyleft) or AGPL-3.0 (for network services)
NO → Continue

Question 4: Is this a commercial SaaS that will become open source?

YES → FSL-1.1-MIT (2-year delay, then MIT)
NO → Review detailed comparison

Quick Selection for Documentation

Question 1: Should others give attribution when using your work?

NO → CC0-1.0 (public domain dedication)
YES → Continue

Question 2: Should derivative works also be open?

YES → CC-BY-SA-4.0 (ShareAlike, like GPL for content)
NO → Continue

Question 3: Should commercial use be allowed?

YES → CC-BY-4.0 (most permissive with attribution)
NO → CC-BY-NC-4.0 (non-commercial restriction)

Multi-Licensing Strategies

What is Multi-Licensing?

Offering the same software under multiple license options, allowing users to choose which license terms they prefer.

Common patterns:

Permissive + Copyleft: MIT + GPL (user chooses)
Open Source + Commercial: GPL + Proprietary (dual licensing)
Time-Delayed: FSL → MIT (automatic transition)

When to Use Multi-Licensing

Good candidates:

Commercial open-source projects needing revenue
Projects wanting copyleft but not wanting to scare away permissive-only users
SaaS products transitioning to open source

Business models:

Open Core: Base under OSS, premium features under commercial
Dual Licensing: GPL for open source, commercial for proprietary use
Time-Delayed: FSL today, MIT automatically in 2 years

FSL-1.1-MIT (Functional Source License)

What it is:

Source-available now, production use restricted
Automatic MIT license after 2 years from release
Used by Sentry and other commercial OSS companies

When to recommend:

Commercial SaaS products
Projects wanting eventual open source with revenue period
Companies following "open source with a business model"

Key points:

Users can read, modify, test the code immediately
Cannot use in production or competing services for 2 years
After 2 years, becomes fully MIT licensed automatically

Not OSI-approved but ethical and sustainable

License Characteristics Reference

Permissions Comparison

| License | Commercial Use | Modifications | Distribution | Patent Grant | Private Use | |---------|---------------|---------------|--------------|-------------|-------------| | MIT | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ | | Apache-2.0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | GPL-3.0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | AGPL-3.0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | | FSL-1.1-MIT | Limited* | ✓ | ✓ | — | ✓ |

*FSL: No production/competing use for 2 years, then becomes MIT

Conditions Comparison

| License | Disclose Source | License Notice | State Changes | Same License | |---------|----------------|----------------|---------------|------------| | MIT | — | ✓ | — | — | | Apache-2.0 | — | ✓ | ✓ | — | | GPL-3.0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (copyleft) | | AGPL-3.0 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (network) | | FSL-1.1-MIT | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |

Practical License Recommendations

By Project Type

Open Source Library:

First choice: MIT (widest adoption)
If patent concerns: Apache-2.0
If want copyleft: LGPL-2.1 (library-specific)

Open Source Application:

First choice: MIT or GPL-3.0 (user preference)
If network service: AGPL-3.0 (prevents proprietary SaaS)
If eventual open source: FSL-1.1-MIT

Documentation/Tutorials:

First choice: CC-BY-4.0 (attribution required)
If want ShareAlike: CC-BY-SA-4.0
If public domain: CC0-1.0

Commercial SaaS:

First choice: FSL-1.1-MIT (delayed open source)
Alternative: Dual GPL + Commercial
Open core: Apache-2.0 for base, commercial for premium

By User Goal

Goal: Maximum adoption and contributions → MIT (most permissive, well-known, widely accepted)

Goal: Prevent proprietary forks → GPL-3.0 (strong copyleft, derivatives must be open source)

Goal: Prevent proprietary SaaS → AGPL-3.0 (network copyleft, closes SaaS loophole)

Goal: Patent protection → Apache-2.0 (explicit patent grant and retaliation clause)

Goal: Business model + open source → FSL-1.1-MIT (revenue window, then open source) or Dual GPL + Commercial

Multi-Licensing Implementation

File Structure for Dual Licensing

repository/
├── LICENSE (primary license, e.g., GPL-3.0)
├── LICENSE.commercial (commercial terms, or link to purchase)
└── README.md (explains licensing options)

README Section Template

## License

This project is dual-licensed:

- **Open Source**: GNU General Public License v3.0 (GPL-3.0)
  - Free for open source projects
  - Derivatives must also be open source

- **Commercial**: Proprietary commercial license
  - For use in proprietary/closed-source projects
  - Contact: sales@example.com

Choose the license that best fits your use case.

FSL Multi-License Pattern

repository/
├── LICENSE.md (FSL-1.1-MIT with both licenses)
└── README.md (explains time-delayed transition)

Additional Resources

Reference Files

For detailed analysis and comparisons:

references/license-comparison.md - Side-by-side detailed license comparisons
references/multi-licensing-guide.md - Dual licensing models, business patterns, real-world examples from FOSSA
references/fsl-explained.md - FSL-1.1-MIT deep dive, use cases, companies using it
references/creative-commons-guide.md - Complete CC license guide for content creators

License Templates

Complete license templates available in plugin:

../../templates/LICENSE/github/ - 21 GitHub-approved licenses (MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL-3.0, etc.)
../../templates/LICENSE/creative-commons/ - Creative Commons licenses (CC0, CC-BY-4.0, CC-BY-SA-4.0, etc.)
../../templates/LICENSE/fsl/ - FSL-1.1-MIT and variants

Use the populate_license.py script to render templates with project-specific variables (copyright holder, year, etc.)

Quick Reference

For most code projects: MIT (permissive, popular)

Need patent protection: Apache-2.0

Want copyleft: GPL-3.0 (code) or AGPL-3.0 (network services)

For documentation: CC-BY-4.0 (attribution) or CC-BY-SA-4.0 (copyleft)

Commercial SaaS: FSL-1.1-MIT (delayed open source)

Multi-licensing: GPL + Commercial (dual) or FSL → MIT (time-delayed)

Consult reference files for detailed comparisons and multi-licensing strategies.